"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored"

- Aldous Huxley

In 1997, nations from around the world congregated in Kyoto, Japan, in response to the global warming epidemic. At this conference, they framed the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from industrialized countries in order to combat the rapid change in the planet's climate some scientists argue that is now taking place. In March 2001, the United States declined to participate in the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.

        In renouncing the protocol, the present administration has used a number of seriously flawed arguments:

1.     Carbon Dioxide "is not a pollutant". Despite this argument, CO₂ is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The fact the EPA doesn’t regulate CO₂ doesn’t make it a "nonpollutant". Carbon dioxide emissions account for 64 percent of global-warming gases, where a full 75 percent of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions come from burning oil, gas and coal. If CO₂ is not a pollutant, then something should be wrong with what I learned before.

2.     Other industrialized countries do not support the protocol. Many developed countries have accepted the basic science of global warming.

3.     The protocol exempts developing countries from addressing global warming. All countries – developing or industrialized – are required to develop programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and to report on their progress. For example, China, "the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases" is cutting back is dependence on coal and have decreased CO2 emissions in the last 5 years or so. But even if this a matter of fairness, U.S. have put into the atmosphere about 75% of the carbon dioxide that has accumulated since the start of the industrial revolution 150 years ago. Furthermore, the U.S., with 5 percent of the Earth's population, already produces one-quarter of the world's man-made carbon dioxide. "The developed countries, which contain a minority of the world's population, account for 72 percent of current fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions and 84 percent of fossil fuel carbon dioxide accumulated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, according to one study. Even taking deforestation and land-use changes into account, developed countries account for 63 percent of current and 78 percent of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from all sources." Even when some Third World countries are trying real hard to catch up, developing nations have not historically been large polluters.

        While the developed countries, with their relatively small populations, have produced most of the carbon dioxide, which produces global climate change, they also have benefited most from the production of carbon dioxide and have the resources to protect themselves from the consequences of climate change. Climate may no longer matter to most people in the developed nations. But for them to continue with economic practices and lifestyles that will accelerate global climate change could well be catastrophic for the people in the developing world.

        I guess that the real issue here is that the protocol will also lead to a slight reduction in inequality between the developed and developing worlds by giving some advantage to certain developing countries' export industries. I feel that this is quite fair for developing nations, as they have to bear the environmental damage that industrialized nations have incurred in the past two centuries. It looks like U.S. and Europe have ridden pollution to economic prosperity and are now trying to prevent the third world from doing the same thing.

4.     Regulations of carbon dioxide would "cause serious harm to the U.S. economy." If the administration is talking about the expenses incurred in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. What about the inexpensive reductions in greenhouse pollution that can be achieved through energy efficiency? On the other hand, global warming is going to ruin ALL economies anyway. I guess Americans aren’t thinking on how the U.S. economy depends on the developing countries. The United States gets enormous amounts of vital resources from the equatorial regions including fossil fuels. These are, in fact, the regions that will suffer most from damages incurred by global warming. The third world’s habitat could either disappear or change beyond recognition by the end of this century due to global warming.

        The decision to abandon the campaign pledge to control global warming pollution from power plants will have massively destructive consequences for the earth and its people. One can explain the position of the industrial opponents as driven by the narrow interests of their current business plans, but that of the American people is unjustifiable. As mentioned by Mr. Bush "The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world." However, his administration pretends to restate the problem and continue with his politics instead of proposing solutions. I agree that all nations, developed and developing, have to be part of the equation; some in more degree than others. I don’t think, however, that this matter should be treated in terms of who is beneficiated the most from it. I frequently hear Americans talking about global warming policies and how they will imply yielding their freedom. I wonder if they are talking about their freedom to waste energy and use the rest of the world as a waste-dumping ground.